On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:51:24AM -0400, jamal wrote: > > migrating route table entries makes no sense because > > a) they refer to devices and configuration that does not exist in the > > target namespace; they only make sense within their netns context > > b) they are purely virtual and you get the same result from deleting and > > recreating them. > > > > Network devices are special because they may have something attached to > > them, be it hardware or some daemon. > > Routes functionally reside on top of netdevices, point to nexthop > neighbors across these netdevices etc. Underlying assumption is you take > care of that dependency when migrating. > We are talking about FIB entries here not the route cache; moving a few > pointers within the kernel is a hell lot faster than recreating a subset > of BGP entries from user space. No. While you sure could associate routes with devices, they don't *functionally* reside on top of network devices. They reside on top of the entire IP configuration, and in case of BGP they even reside on top of your set of peerings and their data. Even if you could "move" routes together with a network device, the result would be utter nonsense. The routes depend on your BGP view, and if your set of interfaces (and peers) changes, your routes will change. Your bgpd will, either way, need to set up new peerings and redo best path evaluations. (On an unrelated note, how often are you planning to move stuff between namespaces? I don't expect to be moving stuff except on configuration events...) -David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
